As you may recall, a controversy erupted in 2006 over the Danish publication of cartoons mocking the prophet Muhammad. The subject is relevant to this website because it demonstrates how stereotypes can provoke anger, hate, and violence. It's also a good excuse to look at how the whites, Christians, and Americans who dominate the world feel free to stereotype others. Fact is, they can dish it out but they can't take it.

They're callous and feeble cartoons, cooked up as a provocation by a conservative newspaper exploiting the general Muslim prohibition on images of the Prophet Muhammad to score cheap points about freedom of expression.

But drawings are drawings, so a question arises. Have any modern works of art provoked as much chaos and violence as the Danish caricatures that first ran in September in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten?

The story goes back a bit further, to a Danish children's author looking to write a book about the life of Muhammad, in the spirit of religious tolerance, and finding no illustrator because all the artists he approached said they were afraid. In response, the newspaper commissioned these cartoons, a dozen of them, by various satirists. And like all pictures calculated to be noticed by offending somebody, the caricaturist's stock in trade and the oldest trick in the book of modern art, they would have disappeared into deserved oblivion had not their targets risen to the bait.

The newspaper was banking on the fact that unlike the West — where Max Ernst's painting of Mary spanking the infant Jesus didn't raise an eyebrow when recently shown at the Metropolitan Museum — the Muslim world has no tradition of, or tolerance for, religious irony in its art.

But there are precedents going all the way back to the Bible for virulent reactions to proscribed and despised images. Beginning with the ancient Egyptians, who lopped off the noses of statues of dead pharaohs, through the toppling of statues of Lenin and Saddam Hussein, violence has often been directed against offending objects, though rarely against the artists who made them.

Educated secular Westerners reared on modernism, with its inclination toward abstraction, its gamesmanship and its knee-jerk baiting of traditional authority, can miss the real force behind certain visual images, particularly religious ones. Trained to see pictures formally, as designs or concepts, we can often overlook the way images may not just symbolize but actually "partake of what they represent," as the art historian David Freedberg has put it.

That's certainly how many aggrieved Muslims perceived the cartoons. Circulating the pictures, they prompted Arab governments like those of Saudi Arabia and Syria, not otherwise champions of religious freedom, to support boycotts of Danish goods and to withdraw their ambassadors from Copenhagen. That in turn led European papers to republish the cartoons in solidarity with Jyllands-Posten and in defense of free speech.

Some of them have been reprinted in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Hungary, New Zealand, Ukraine and Jordan. One appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer. They've spread worldwide via the Web, exacerbating Muslim outrage while leading many nonbelieving non-Muslims to scratch their heads over how such banal and idiotic pictures could ever be given a thought in the first place. Muhammad is lampooned with a turban in the shape of a ticking bomb; he's at the gates of heaven, arms raised, saying to men who look like suicide bombers, "Stop, stop, we have run out of virgins."

Irate Muslim protesters set fire to the Danish and Norwegian missions in Damascus, where Syrian newspapers routinely print the most appalling, racist cartoons of big-nosed Jews. In Beirut, rioters burned the Danish mission and vandalized a Maronite Catholic church, beating a Dutch news photographer mistaken for a Dane.

On Monday, Afghan security forces killed several protesters who tried to storm the American air base at Bagram. Yesterday the leading Iranian daily announced a contest for the best cartoon about the Holocaust, and 200 members of Iran's 290-member Parliament condemned the Danish cartoons: "Apparently, they have not learned their lesson from the miserable author of 'The Satanic Verses,' " the members said in a statement, referring to the fatwah against Salman Rushdie. From Gaza to Auckland, imams have demanded execution or amputations for the cartoonists and their publishers.

Over art? These are made-up pictures. The photographs from Abu Ghraib were documents of real events, but they didn't provoke such widespread violence. What's going on?

In part, the new Molotov cocktail of technology and incendiary art has hastened the speed with which otherwise forgettable pictures are now globally transmitted. Cellphones help protesters rally mobs swiftly against them.

And there is also the deepening cynicism and political hypocrisy now endemic in the culture wars. Last week a State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, simultaneously condemned the cartoons as "unacceptable" and spoke up for free speech, while the Joint Chiefs of Staff were firing off a letter to The Washington Post about a cartoon it ran in which Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, in the guise of a doctor, says to a heavily bandaged soldier who has lost his arms and legs, "I'm listing your condition as 'battle hardened.' " The letter called the cartoon, by Tom Toles, "reprehensible" and offensive to soldiers.

The Post's editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt, replied that the newspaper would not censor its cartoonists, inspiring John Aravosis, who runs Americablog (americablog.blogspot.com), the Web site where the letter was first reported, to tell Editor & Publisher magazine: "Now that the Joint Chiefs have addressed the insidious threat cartoons pose to our troops, perhaps they can move on to the less pressing issues like getting them their damn body armor."

As is so often the case in the culture wars, choosing sides can be exasperating. Modern artists and their promoters forever pander to a like-minded audience by goading obvious targets, hoping to incite reactions that pass for political point-scoring. The twist in the Danish case is only that a conservative paper provoked Muslims. One may be excused for wondering whether the silence of the art world has something to do with the discomfort of staking a position where neither party offers the sanctuary of political correctness.

An obvious precedent, now comically tame by comparison, is the "Sensation" show at the Brooklyn Museum in 1999, a promotional bonanza for the British collector and wheeler-dealer Charles Saatchi, who owned the art in the show. The exhibition incited protests by the Catholic League. Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani played the stern dad to a bunch of publicity-savvy artists whose work included a collage of the Virgin Mary with cutouts from pornographic magazines and shellacked clumps of elephant dung.

Previously unmoved to action by Catholic League protests against a play at City Center involving a gay lead character fashioned after Jesus, the mayor, contemplating a Senate race against Hillary Rodham Clinton, decided he was personally offended by the art, although he had never actually seen it, and threatened to cut off public financing for the museum.

"You don't have a right to government subsidy for desecrating somebody else's religion," he said, foreshadowing a bit the Danish debacle about freedom of religious expression, notwithstanding that the artist of the Virgin Mary, Chris Ofili, happened to be Roman Catholic.

The New York art world was shocked only because it had expected the show to pass without fuss, since the art was already old news to insiders. But then museums nationwide had to hold their collective nose to defend Brooklyn over the issue of free expression, and by the end the whole affair had turned into farce, obscuring even the quality of what were, in fact, a few not-so-bad works of art.

No protester torched the museum or called for beheading anybody. Farce now becomes calamity over the cartoons, a different matter. The current bloodshed, fueled by political extremists and religious fanatics, turns the culture war once again into real war. People forget that Salman Rushdie's Japanese and Italian translators were stabbed (the Japanese fatally) and his Norwegian publisher shot.

What may be overlooked this time is a deep, abiding fact about visual art, its totemic power: the power of representation. This power transcends logic or aesthetics. Like words, it can cause genuine pain.

Ancient Greeks used to chain statues to prevent them from fleeing. Buddhists in Ceylon once believed that a painting could be brought to life once its eyes were painted. In the Netherlands in the 1560's, pictures were smashed in nearly every town and village simply for being graven images. And in the Philippines, enraged citizens destroyed billboards of Ferdinand Marcos.

To many people, pictures will always, mysteriously, embody the things they depict. Among the issues to be hashed out in this affair, there's a lesson to be gleaned about art: Even a dumb cartoon may not be so dumb if it calls out to someone.

THE American left and right don't agree on much, but weeks of demonstrations and embassy burnings have pushed them toward convergence on one point: there is, if not a clash of civilizations, at least a very big gap between the "Western world" and the "Muslim world." When you get beyond this consensus — the cultural chasm consensus — and ask what to do about the problem, there is less agreement. After all, chasms are hard to bridge.

Fortunately, this chasm's size is being exaggerated. The Muslim uproar over those Danish cartoons isn't as alien to American culture as we like to think. Once you see this, a benign and quintessentially American response comes into view.

Even many Americans who condemn the cartoon's publication accept the premise that the now-famous Danish newspaper editor set out to demonstrate: in the West we don't generally let interest groups intimidate us into what he called "self-censorship."

What nonsense. Editors at mainstream American media outlets delete lots of words, sentences and images to avoid offending interest groups, especially ethnic and religious ones. It's hard to cite examples since, by definition, they don't appear. But use your imagination.

Hugh Hewitt, a conservative blogger and evangelical Christian, came up with an apt comparison to the Muhammad cartoon: "a cartoon of Christ's crown of thorns transformed into sticks of TNT after an abortion clinic bombing." As Mr. Hewitt noted, that cartoon would offend many American Christians. That's one reason you haven't seen its like in a mainstream American newspaper.

Or, apparently, in many mainstream Danish newspapers. The paper that published the Muhammad cartoon, it turns out, had earlier rejected cartoons of Christ because, as the Sunday editor explained in an e-mail to the cartoonist who submitted them, they would provoke an outcry.

Defenders of the "chasm" thesis might reply that Western editors practice self-censorship to avoid cancelled subscriptions, picket lines or advertising boycotts, not death. Indeed, what forged the chasm consensus, convincing many Americans that the "Muslim world" might as well be another planet, is the image of hair-trigger violence: a few irreverent drawings appear and embassies go up in flames.

But the more we learn about this episode, the less it looks like spontaneous combustion. The initial Muslim response to the cartoons was not violence, but small demonstrations in Denmark along with a lobbying campaign by Danish Muslims that cranked on for months without making it onto the world's radar screen.

Only after these activists were snubbed by Danish politicians and found synergy with powerful politicians in Muslim states did big demonstrations ensue. Some of the demonstrations turned violent, but much of the violence seems to have been orchestrated by state governments, terrorist groups and other cynical political actors.

Besides, who said there's no American tradition of using violence to make a point? Remember the urban riots of the 1960's, starting with the Watts riot of 1965, in which 34 people were killed? The St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Bob Gibson, in his 1968 book "From Ghetto to Glory," compared the riots to a "brushback pitch" — a pitch thrown near a batter's head to keep him from crowding the plate, a way of conveying that the pitcher needs more space.

In the wake of the rioting, blacks got more space. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People had been protesting broadcast of the "Amos 'n' Andy" show, with its cast of shiftless and conniving blacks, since the 1950's, but only in 1966 did CBS withdraw reruns from distribution. There's no way to establish a causal link, but there's little doubt that the riots of the 1960's heightened sensitivity to grievances about the portrayal of blacks in the media. (Translation: heightened self-censorship.)

Amid the cartoon protests, some conservative blogs have warned that addressing grievances expressed violently is a form of "appeasement," and will only bring more violence and weaken Western values. But "appeasement" didn't work that way in the 1960's. The Kerner Commission, set up by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1967 to study the riots, recommended increased attention to the problems of poverty, job and housing discrimination, and unequal education — attention that was forthcoming and that didn't exactly spawn decades of race riots.

The commission recognized the difference between what triggers an uproar (how police handle a traffic stop in Watts) and what fuels it (discrimination, poverty, etc.). This recognition has been sparse amid the cartoon uproar, as Americans fixate on the question of how a single drawing could inflame millions.

Answer: depends on which million you're talking about. In Gaza much of the actual fuel came from tensions with Israelis, in Iran some fundamentalists nursed longstanding anti-Americanism, in Pakistan opposition to the pro-Western ruling regime played a role, and so on.

This diversity of rage, and of underlying grievance, complicates the challenge. Apparently refraining from obvious offense to religious sensibilities won't be enough. Still, the offense in question is a crystalline symbol of the overall challenge, because so many of the grievances coalesce in a sense that Muslims aren't respected by the affluent, powerful West (just as rioting American blacks felt they weren't respected by affluent, powerful whites). A cartoon that disrespects Islam by ridiculing Muhammad is both trigger and extremely high-octane fuel.

None of this is to say that there aren't big differences between American culture and culture in many Muslim parts of the world. In a way, that's the point: some differences are so big, and the job of shrinking them so daunting, that we can't afford to be unclear on what the biggest differences are.

What isn't a big difference is the Muslim demand for self-censorship by major media outlets. That kind of self-censorship is not just an American tradition, but a tradition that has helped make America one of the most harmonious multiethnic and multireligious societies in the history of the world.

So why not take the model that has worked in America and apply it globally? Namely: Yes, you are legally free to publish just about anything, but if you publish things that gratuitously offend ethnic or religious groups, you will earn the scorn of enlightened people everywhere. With freedom comes responsibility.

Of course, it's a two-way street. As Westerners try to attune themselves to the sensitivities of Muslims, Muslims need to respect the sensitivities of, for example, Jews. But it's going to be hard for Westerners to sell Muslims on this symmetrical principle while flagrantly violating it themselves. That Danish newspaper editor, along with his American defenders, is complicating the fight against anti-Semitism.

Some Westerners say there's no symmetry here — that cartoons about the Holocaust are more offensive than cartoons about Muhammad. And, indeed, to us secularists it may seem clear that joking about the murder of millions of people is worse than mocking a God whose existence is disputed.

BUT one key to the American formula for peaceful coexistence is to avoid such arguments — to let each group decide what it finds most offensive, so long as the implied taboo isn't too onerous. We ask only that the offended group in turn respect the verdicts of other groups about what they find most offensive. Obviously, anti-Semitic and other hateful cartoons won't be eliminated overnight. (In the age of the Internet, no form of hate speech will be eliminated, period; the argument is about what appears in mainstream outlets that are granted legitimacy by nations and peoples.)

But the American experience suggests that steadfast self-restraint can bring progress. In the 1960's, the Nation of Islam was gaining momentum as its leader, Elijah Muhammad, called whites "blue-eyed devils" who were about to be exterminated in keeping with Allah's will. The Nation of Islam has since dropped in prominence and, anyway, has dropped that doctrine from its talking points. Peace prevails in America, and one thing that keeps it is strict self-censorship.

And not just by media outlets. Most Americans tread lightly in discussing ethnicity and religion, and we do it so habitually that it's nearly unconscious. Some might call this dishonest, and maybe it is, but it also holds moral truth: until you've walked in the shoes of other people, you can't really grasp their frustrations and resentments, and you can't really know what would and wouldn't offend you if you were part of their crowd.

The Danish editor's confusion was to conflate censorship and self-censorship. Not only are they not the same thing — the latter is what allows us to live in a spectacularly diverse society without the former; to keep censorship out of the legal realm, we practice it in the moral realm. Sometimes it feels uncomfortable, but worse things are imaginable.

Robert Wright, the author of "The Moral Animal," is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.

*****

February 9, 2006

Such Depictions Have Been Used as a Weapon Against Oppressed Peoples for Centuries

An American Indian's View of the Cartoons

By ROBERT ROBIDEAU

Reading the first news reports about the cartoons depicting Muhammid as a terrorist reminded me of the unfriendly media that printed the then Attorney Gerneral of for South Dakota, William Janklows` vigilante order, "The only way to deal with the Indian problem in South Dakota is to put a gun to the AIM leaders' heads and pull the trigger." Such ethnically hostile and abusive reporting by mainstream media was what helped to kill more than 60 American Indians and assault hundreds more during the federal governments reign of terror that occurred between 1973 and 1975 on the Pine Ridge Oglala Lakota reservation.

The old adage that was popularized in Hollywood westerns," White man speaks with forked tongue" had a special meaning. It denoted the deceit of European settlers who often lied to North American Indian people as they stole coveted lands and nearly decimated them as a people. The recent split tongue approach used in defending Danish racist cartoons as freedom of speech must be loudly condemned as just more attacks on the rights of Muslims to defend their lands, culture and self determination.

Most European and North American newspapers support the editor of, Jyllands-Posten, the first paper to publish the offensively racist cartoons, expressed position, "we cannot apologize for freedom of _expression."

The word "but" is a favorite transition of hypocrites who would have us believe on one hand that freedom of speech is a democratic principle to be defended at all cost, while on the other hand are quick to condemn when it attacks and incites hatred toward them and those they wish to protect.

Many "Democratic" European countries have laws against anti-Semitism, which are exclusive; they do not protect other cultures from racial attacks. You can insult the prophet of Islam with offensive cartoon messages that deface his image, to create an atmosphere of hatred for Muslims, but dare not tread on the special rights and protections they have formed laws around to protect anti-Semitism.

For years Abu Hamza al-Masri, an Egyptian Muslim, had exercised his right to free speech at his Finsbury Park mosque in London. The British authorities attempted to revoke his citizenship and for years never brought criminal charges against him. With the new atmosphere created around the global war on terrorism (GWT) an English tribunal recently convicted and sentenced Hamza to seven years in prison for allegedly "directly and deliberately stirring up hatred against Jewish people and encouraging murder of those he referred to as non-believers." Certainly the same could be said of the cartoonist.

Despite the fact that more then 10 people have died as a result of the Danish cartoons there has been no criminal charge laid against the offending papers nor the Danish cartoonist. Some countries say that they are looking for ways to prosecute.The cartoons, which many Danish and Scandinavian newspaper editors defended in the name "radical Islam" predictably, resulted in stirring the anger of the Muslim world, rightly so. In defense, they have taken to the streets in unified protests that will, I hope, send shock waves throughout the European Union for sometime to come.

With all the comparisons that have been made and continue to be made between the struggles of Muslim people and North American Indian people, it did not come as a surprise to find similar cartoons historically used to create racism, hatred and war against American Indians. Portraying the popular sentiment about Indians in the 1800`s. A cartoon by Grant Hamilton, called the, "The Nation's Ward" portrayed the Indian as a savage snake constricting a pioneer family. It shows further the American Indian being fed by Uncle Sam while the pioneers' home burns. This cartoon and others like it protested the U.S. treaty promise of giving out food rations to Indians through hard winters. Political propaganda fed through various printed media has helped to create the mentality that allowed wholesale, systematic and frenetic killings of Indian men, women and children. One example of such an atrocity took place at Sand Creek when Phil Sheridan gave U.S. soldiers permission to butcher women and children and to hang their sexual body parts on public display at the Denver opera house. Such atrocities have occurred in today,s modern wars currently being waged against Muslim people under Bush,s doctrine of ´preemptive strike´ that has killed more civilians then fighters.

More recently, the United States federal government began using the FBI as a national political police force to put down legitimate protest movements of the 1960´s. A program called the counter intelligence program (cointelpro) was developed to assist the FBI. This program used offensive cartoons as a method to fan the flames of racism that had been spoon-fed to the Euro-American public through newspapers, books, cartoons and Hollywood westerns became part of their standard bag of dirty tricks in putting down peaceful protest.

Today, the FBI, with a mad infinity for maintaining the imprisonment of now world famous American Indian activist, Leonard Peltier, not to long ago, used a cartoon posing him as an Indian terrorist killing their fellow agents. This cartoon is still today on their website, despite the fact that even prosecutors who tried the case admit they "do not know who killed the two FBI agents" during the Pine Ridge reign of terror on June 26, 1976. Leonard Peltier has been confined 30 years in federal prisons as a result of FBI manufactured evidence, much of which the federal government has since admitted to.

There is no question that sports teams who use Indian Mascots, cartoons that portray inaccurate images, symbols insulting to American Indians. One professor speaking out against the use of Chief Illiniwek by the U of I football team in the late 1990s, said," "I've often visited Germany and speaking to younger people there, they all feel great pain when they consider the recent past. Not one university in Germany would contemplate having a rabbi as a mascot."

Freedom of speech and of the press has been used as a weapon against oppressed people for centuries. It has been nothing more than a smokescreen to justify the actions of a few but in reality incite religious and ethnic hatred. The editors knew these cartoons were clearly drawn as deadly propaganda tools, created with malice and forethought, to neutralize Muslim groups in struggle and deny them "respectability" in the world community. Who now should be charged for inciting a riot? Who now should be held accountable to the Muslim communities for these slanderous, racist cartoons that has forced communities to take sides against each other? How can we share this world, respecting the diversity of ethnic origins if the powers on hand continue to pump the public with hate filled propaganda! It is time for the media to step up to the plate accepting responsibility for their actions and what better place is there to start than in Denmark!

ROBERT ROBIDEAU is co-director of the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee.

*****

A debate with Jeff
Just before this controversy broke, I sent correspondent Jeff an article on an Islamic comic in the works. From the NY Times, :

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, Jan. 21 — For comic book readers in Arab countries, the world often looks like this: superheroes save American cities, battle beasts in Tokyo and even on occasion solve crimes in the French countryside. But few care about saving the Arab world.

If Naif al-Mutawa has his way, that is about to change. Young Arabs will soon be poring over a new group — and new genre — of superheroes like Jabbar, Mumita and Ramzi Razem, all aimed specifically at young Muslim readers and focusing on Muslim virtues.

Mr. Mutawa's Teshkeel Media, based in Kuwait, says that in September it will begin publishing "The 99," a series of comic books based on superhero characters who battle injustice and fight evil, with each character personifying one of the 99 qualities that Muslims believe God embodies.

Jeff's reply:

Maybe he can have a character called Exploding Boy that goes into marketplaces and kills infidels.

Not interested - sorry. The arab world is too backwards and can't be objective or openminded regarding artistic expression. I bet there won't be any female heroes either.

BTW I already have a character called Exploding Boy but he is capable of independent thought.

On 2/17/06, after the Muhammad controversy broke, I sent Jeff the following message:

Since they're (peacefully) protesting the demonization of Muslims, maybe we should stop demonizing Muslims (along with blacks, Hispanics, and Indians).

About 1,000 Muslims held a peaceful rally and prayed in a park near the United Nations today to protest the dozen caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, originally published in a newspaper in Denmark, that have set off a series of violent demonstrations around the world.

Officials from various New York-area Muslim religious and community groups that organized the rally, the first major gathering of its kind in the city, said they wanted to speak out against the "demonization of Muslims" in Denmark and the violent protests in Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries. Local Muslim leaders were scheduled to meet with officials from the Danish Consulate after the rally to present them with books about the life of Muhammad.

In a program that lasted for more than four hours, various religious and community leaders spoke about what they said should be the appropriate, and peaceful, reaction to the cartoons. They also said they hoped outsiders would be encouraged to learn more about their religion and beliefs as a result of the gathering.

"Ignorance is the enemy," said Wael Mousfar, president of the Arab Muslim Federation.

It is considered blasphemous to depict Muhammad, whom Muslims consider the last and most important in a series of messengers from God that includes Abraham, Moses and Jesus. One of the 12 cartoons printed by the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, shows Muhammad wearing a turban in the shape of a bomb.

The rally drew a diverse cross-section of New York's Muslim population of South Asians, Africans, African-Americans and Arabs. People started gathering at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, a block west and north from the United Nations, shortly before noon as the sun was beginning to peek out after a morning of rain. Community affairs officers from the New York Police intermingled with those attending the rally as other officers watched the gathering with binoculars from nearby rooftops.

Many of the speakers talked about the need to galvanize the Muslim community generally and said this issue was doing that, but few spoke about or against the United States, which they said respected their right to practice their faith.

The word "insult" was frequently invoked to characterize their reaction to the cartoons, which some people in attendance said they had seen and others said they had no desire to view.

Magdy Eleish, a 56-year-old native of Egypt, said he came because he "wanted to do something" and, echoing the sentiment of many others, hoped that the rally would inspire non-Muslims to read about the prophet. "Our feelings are hurt," he said. "If someone insults your father, don't you hurt?"

After the speeches, Imam Siraj Wahhaj of Masjid At-Taqwa in Brooklyn led the group in Friday prayers. The sight of so many people sitting on prayer mats, plastic sheets, garbage bags and cardboard boxes prompted him to remark that it had taken a controversy to bring so many Muslims together for a Friday prayer.

There have been few major rallies and protests against the cartoons in the United States. Most major American newspapers, including The New York Times, have not printed the images. The New York Sun, a daily newspaper, published two of the cartoons earlier this month; the paper said it did so "not to make a political statement but to illustrate" a story about the controversy. The Philadelphia Inquirer printed one of the cartoons, as have several college newspapers.

President Bush has condemned the violence but has asked the press to be more responsible and thoughtful about the religious beliefs of Muslims and others.

Jeff replies
And I reply to him (3/27/06):

>> The reaction to the cartoons was uncivilized and shows that we are dealing with people whose moral, values and attitudes are differant than ours. <<

The few thousand people who rioted may have different values. The 1.2 billion-plus people who didn't riot probably have similar values.

>> They are the only people in the world that will blow themselves up for a cause ( except the kamikazes). <<

American soldiers went on suicide missions in past wars for causes they believed in.

The first happens in African tribal cultures that aren't Islamic. The last two happen throughout Central Asia in cultures (e.g., Hindu) that aren't Islamic.

>> Sorry, I feel no sympathy. <<

I feel no sympathy for your racism.

>> If they allow us to live in peace and coexist then fine — but they don't and so therefore deserve no special treatment. <<

"They" who? You don't know whom you're talking about. Why don't you try to identify the specific people who aren't letting us live in peace? Your racism screed against a quarter of the world doesn't interest me.

>> I don't care about PC. <<

You don't care about facts, obviously. But then, that's what blind prejudice is all about.

>> I have 2 daughters — a muslim world would be a living death for them <<

More blind prejudice. Several Muslim countries are democracies and few follow the harsh practices of Sharia. Iraq, for one, was a secular state where women had roughly equal rights.

>> In fact it's a living death for any freethinking, freedom loving person. <<

Too bad you're not using your freedom to actually think freely.

>> I make no apologies and openly hate all religious zealotry and orthodoxy. <<

That's funny, since you're spewing the racist orthodoxy of the typical right-wing zealot. Clearly you don't hate bigotry, which is where all zealotry, including yours, ultimately comes from.

>> the differance is the Christians aren't blowing themselves up and beheading infidels. <<

No, they're just invading countries under false pretenses or dropping bombs on innocent civilians. And spare me the idiotic nonsense about how "they started it" because Iraq didn't start anything.

Go ahead, Mr. Free Thinker: Let's hear your justification for slaughtering Iraqis who did nothing to harm us. Try not to sound toomuch like Osama Bin Laden when you do so.

>> we may have to just to save civilization and prevent a return to the dark ages. <<

Wow, is this an ignorant statement. Apparently you have no clue about the situation in Iraq. In case you've been living in a spider hole the last few years, every expert and report has concluded that Iraq posed no threat to the world.

So whom do you think we're saving civilization from? It sure isn't anyone in Iraq—except maybe the insurgents who have gathered there to fight us because we invaded the country. If you want to fight terrorists, why don't we do it where they are instead of where they're not?

Bush is helping the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which is where the terrorists came from and where they are now. Should we invade those countries too? And if we do, will you be the first to volunteer to fight—to protect your daughters from "evil"? Yeah, sure you will.

*****

The debate continues (3/29/06)....
>> This is especially important to us as creators because we can basically become targets just because someone doesn't like our opinions — thoughts, ideas — not actions! There is a signifigant schism here in values, morals and beliefs and we can't simply ignore it. It is an assault on the very ideas of free speech, individual opinion , religious freedom and personal safety. <<

Our right-wing, corporate-based government is a much bigger threat to our First Amendment rights. Bush is eviscerating the Constitution on his own without any help from Islamic terrorists.

>> People can complain about "villifying" muslims, but where were the riots after 9/11? Where were the arab lynchings? What did the Spaniards or British do after their train bombings? How about French response to the muslim riots a few months ago? Nothing. No mobs, no riots, no retribution. <<

All we did was invade a country illegally, kills thousands of civilians, institute a program of torture abroad and spying domestically, and begin imprisoning people in concentration camps for the first time since World War II. But no, we didn't riot.

Of course, the 9/11 terrorists killed 3.000 people, but they didn't defame an entire religion or insult a billion-plus people. Many people around the world value their honor more than their lives. To them, Westerners committed the worse crime by a mile.

And no retribution? The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were the retribution, fella. Duh.

>> A couple of people draw (DRAW!) a few offensive cartoons and people are attacking churches, burning embassies and dying. <<

Publish a cartoon of Jesus having sex with a goat if you think Americans are so different. Let me know the results.

>> And I, and the world, are supposed to see muslims as the same as you and me — all the same under differneath clothes, language and skin?! <<

Only if you don't want me to label you a racist. Otherwise, I'll keep doing it, since you fit the dictionary definition of one.

>> But we as americans are "supposed" to feel guilty about disliking ( which again is thoughts / ideas, not actions) people who we don't hold to the same standard of behavior as we hold ourselves? <<

If you had the slightest shred of logic at your command, you'd feel guilty about your ignorant racism. Only a few thousand Muslims have rioted, but you dislike all 1.3 billion of them?! How is your idiotic ranting and raving any different from that of a Nazi or Ku Klux Klan member?

>> Not me and I feel no guilt. <<

And I don't feel any guilt calling you a racist. If the shoe fits, wear it.

*****

Jeff sent another message with the following heading:

>> Subj: Re: is this villifying? They seem to be villifying us

Hundreds of Muslims protesting caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad tried to storm the U.S. Embassy on Sunday, smashing the windows of a guard post but failing to push through the gates. Several people were injured. <<

Yes, it's vilifying. One, these people may be "thugs," but a thug isn't a terrorist. The Muhammad cartoons implied that Muslims were all terrorists, not just thugs. Two, approximately 1,299,999,500 Muslims did NOT assault the US embassy in Indonesia. Ascribing the characteristics of .0000384% of a population to the entire population is a textbook example of vilifying—and of racism.

*****

The debate continues (5/2/06)....
>> what race is Islam? How is it racist to be against Islam if it comprises 1/3 of the worlds population? racist against a belief system? that makes no sense. <<

The Islamic religion overlaps significantly with the Arab ethnic group. Most people who are prejudiced against Muslims are really prejudiced against Arabs.

But you tell me: Do you think the black Muslims in America are part of the worldwide conspiracy to kill Americans? How about the poor Muslim tribes in sub-Saharan Africa? How about the remote Muslim villages in western China? Any terrorists there?

Do you seriously think all Muslims are equally guilty of wanting to kill Americans? In other words, are you that ignorant about the depth and breadth of Islam's reach? Or are you mainly prejudiced against Arab Muslims? I'm guessing the latter, which is why I suspect you're prejudiced against race as well as religion.

>> BTW I have never said I support the Iraqi war. <<

Didn't you? I thought you did.

Of course, you haven't said you don't support the Iraqi war in this message. So which is it? Do you support or oppose the Iraqi war?

>> I know what it's about and they are convinced that the Iraqis are incapapble of handling democracy or something as simple as gender equality. <<

Women had more rights under Saddam Hussein than they'll have under an Islamic theocracy. But I'm sure men dominated the society just as they do everywhere.

>> I'm sorry but I've come to realize that you are basically a white guy who is consumed with white guilt and will always see any minority as the victim and Europeans as evil. <<

Wrong. I called for strong action after 9/11—just not a misguided war against the wrong people. You know, the kind of boring police work that doesn't get a president reelected, but does lead to the actual arrest of terrorist suspects? The only kind of action that's produced results so far?

In case you've been living in a cave the last few years, our wars on Afghanistan and Iraq didn't capture Al Qaeda or halt the threat of terrorism. In fact, terrorism is worse now than it's ever been—as I and others correctly predicted. Can you deal with these hard facts without regurgitating mindless slogans? Go ahead and surprise me. Try.

>> Much like the anarchists and pacifists that have the luxury of believing as they do because they are secure in the knowledge that the soldiers and cops will protect them. <<

The last threat our soldiers protected us from was the Axis powers in WW II. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, etc. were no threat to our borders or our safety. But again, that would take more than a child's understanding of recent history—something I'm not sure you're capable of.

As for the police, I bet I've voted for more tax increases to fund police services than you have. Like most libertarian types, you whine about law and order but are probably unwilling to fund it from your own pockets. You want cops and soldiers to protect you as long as you can do it without paying a dime.

>> Were they to really live in the systems they acclaim they would be miserable and probably the firt line of victims. <<

Wow, you really are ignorant, aren't you? I don't "acclaim" any system other than a secular capitalist democracy. Noting its strengths and weaknesses is far from advocating another system in its place.

*****

>> What race is an idea or belief system? Your name calling doesn't change the content of my arguments. <<

What content? That 1.3 billion people are terrorists? Yeah, and all the Jews are moneygrubbers. All the Indians are savages. Etc.

>> Now their beliefs are in the dark ages and as repressive to free thought and speech as communism was ( like the Afghanistan case of wanting to execute the Christian convert , recommended by clerics.) <<

You're confusing repressive governments with a repressive religion. In places where democratic governments are relatively strong—the US, Turkey, Indonesia—Islam coexists with other religions.

>> It must be a real quandry for a bleeding heart like you since their beliefs are so non-PC but you feel the need to defend them to maintain the PC. <<

No, not really. It's fairly easy to explain what's happening if you read the news and think about it. That is, if you do more than regurgitate mindless slogans.

>> I have no further interest in this line of discussion since we are at an impass and I have no desire to entertain your opinion any further on this matter. <<

If by "impasse" you mean that I've presented you with the facts about Islam and terrorism and you can't address them, you're right.

>> If you want to talk comics then write me but not politics. I don't argue for argument's sake. <<

Comic-book arguments aren't arguments for the sake of arguments? Okay, if you say so. <g>

I believe you started this topic by saying you weren't interested in Islamic comics because they'd necessarily glorify terrorism. So you have only yourself to blame for me whipping you in this debate. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Don't make ignorant statements and I won't have to rebut them.

Rob

*****

The debate continues (6/15/06)....
>> Um dude, if you are going to write name-calling and insulting emails then please contact me no further — I don't have time for it. <<

If you're going to respond to cogent arguments with bigoted diatribes, I won't let them go unchallenged. If you have time to write 'em, I have time to respond.

IOW, if you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen. That's the simplest solution for everyone.

*****

The Saudi form of Islam is dominant in only a couple of countries. And the Saudis remain staunch American allies.

Wahhabism (Arabic: Al-Wahha-bi-yya, Wahabism) is a branch of Sunni Islam practised by those who follow the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, after whom the movement is named. Ibn Abdul Wahhab, who reintroduced Shariah (Islamic law) to the Arabian peninsula, was influenced by the writings of scholars such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya. This theology is the dominant form found in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar, as well as some pockets of Somalia, Algeria, Palestine and Mauritania.

*****

The debate continues (7/11/06)....
On 6/3/06 Jeff sent me the following article (source unknown):

Indian publishers tackle radical Islam in themed comic books

by Tripti Lahiri
Thu Jun 1, 1:24 PM ET

It might be a comic book but instead of caped superheroes and masked marauders, the first release from a Delhi publisher features bearded Muslim radicals and a bespectacled anthropologist.

"The Believers," written by a journalist and published in April by a duo calling themselves Phantomville, tells of the rise of religious extremism in the southern Indian state of Kerala through the reunion of two brothers.

The younger one, Hamid, an anthropology professor in Scotland, returns home to his childhood village for his grandmother's funeral after a gap of 12 years and discovers that his older brother now heads a hardline Islamic group.

"The story was very much around me which is why it is based in northern Kerala where I live," author Abdul Sultan told AFP by e-mail.

"The incidents that I have mentioned and represented fictionally have happened in this part of Kerala."

The 98-page English-language book is an attempt to promote another path, the author said, even as some turn increasingly to violence when religion, oppression and poverty collide.

"The book is about tolerance," he explained. "I would like it to reach out to young people everywhere in the world."

My response on 7/11/06:

I thought you said it wasn't possible to have Muslim heroes in comics without their being fundamentalists and terrorists.

*****

>> I never said that. <<

Right. I paraphrased your response this time around. <g> When I sent you an article on an Islamic comic, what you actually said was:

Maybe he can have a character called Exploding Boy that goes into marketplaces and kills infidels.

Not interested — sorry. The arab world is too backwards and can't be objective or openminded regarding artistic expression. I bet there won't be any female heroes either.

BTW I already have a character called Exploding Boy but he is capable of independent thought.

>> But your quote says they are muslim radicals — how is that a good thing? <<

You're the one who sent me this article. The comic supposedly features Indian heroes who oppose Muslim radicals.

*****

A debate with Bonnie
While I was kicking Jeff's libertarian-leaning butt, I was also kicking correspondent Bonnie's libertarian-leaning butt. She started it by sending the following article and commentary on 2/7/06 in response to the Muhammad controversy:

First: "Islam is a religion of peace. It insists that all other religions and faiths should be respected," he told the crowd. "Nobody has the right to insult Islam and hurt the feelings of Muslims."

Yet: In neighboring Pakistan, 5,000 people chanting "Hang the man who insulted the prophet" burned effigies of one cartoonist and Denmark's prime minister.

So, whose side are you on? The free speech side, or the poor widdle offended Muslim's side? Must be a conundrum for the PC elite like yourself!

I replied on 3/10/06:

>> NATO Troops Open Fire on Afghan Demonstrators
FOX News

Oh my God, the hypocrisy of these people! <<

Are you talking about the NATO troops or the Afghan demonstrators? I guess it could be either. Yep, any NATO soldier who's a card-carrying Christian has no business firing a gun at anyone, much less an unarmed demonstrator. I'm confident Jesus would not approve.

>> First: "Islam is a religion of peace. It insists that all other religions and faiths should be respected," he told the crowd. "Nobody has the right to insult Islam and hurt the feelings of Muslims." <<

I'm not sure where you got this quote from. If you go to the link you provided, here's what it actually says:

Chief Minister Akram Durrani, the province's top elected official who led the rally, demanded the cartoonists "be punished like a terrorist."

"Islam ... insists that all other religions and faiths should be respected," he said. "Nobody has the right to insult Islam and hurt the feelings of Muslims."

In particular, Durrani did not say "Islam is a religion of peace," as far as I can tell. For all we know, he may have said, "Islam is a religion of vengeance....Therefore, attack, my brothers. Kill the infidels!"

While I don't condone this sentiment, I wouldn't call it hypocritical. Unless he explicitly said "Islam is a religion of peace" and then acted un-peacefully, I don't think he's a hypocrite.

>> Yet: In neighboring Pakistan, 5,000 people chanting "Hang the man who insulted the prophet" burned effigies of one cartoonist and Denmark's prime minister. <<

The same applies to everyone in this crowd. Do we know they subscribe to the "Islam is a religion of peace" philosophy? If they don't, then they're logically free to kill and burn. Their actions may be immoral, but they're not necessarily hypocritical.

But let's look at the larger picture. This was only 5,000 people. That leaves 1,299,995,000 of the 1.3 billion Muslims worldwide who haven't lifted a finger to protest the cartoons or harm anyone. In fact, Muslims have held several peaceful rallies since then.

We already know Islam has extremists, so that's not news. So does every religion.

Only three people died when the NATO troops opened fire on Afghan demonstrators. That's a slow day in Iraq, where Islamic hypocrites blow people up and Christian hypocrites (aka US soldiers) kill civilians in a war that never should've happened.

>> So, whose side are you on? The free speech side, or the poor widdle offended Muslim's side? Must be a conundrum for the PC elite like yourself! <<

Not really.

Since I knew this would come up, I sent you a few articles that covered my position.

The newspapers have a free-speech right to publish the cartoons, but also a responsibility to use their freedom wisely. The responsible thing would've been not to publish the cartoons. But as long as people aren't shouting fire in a crowded theater, we must allow those who exercise our core freedoms to do so.

Similarly, I wouldn't necessarily agree with neo-Nazis who want to march through Jewish neighborhoods or protesters who want to burn the American flag. Or with newspapers that want to publish a cartoon showing Jesus having anal sex with a "Brokeback" cowboy, which would be the Western equivalent of the Muhammad cartoon. (You can bet THAT would draw a big crowd of angry Christians.) But ultimately I defend their right to do so.

*****

The debate continues (3/18/06)....
>> So I'm guessing in the "Mohammed cartoon" riots, you're siding with the terrorists then. <<

Which side are the terrorists on? I thought the debate was between sincere believers in free speech and sincere believers in Islam.

As I said, I'd have to give the ultimate edge to the free-speech crowd. So I guess you guessed wrong.

>> God forbid anyone should ever be offended on the basis of their race, religion, or ethnicity. <<

Yeah, right. If you're so brave, why don't you go ahead and publish a cartoon of Jesus having anal sex with a man? Create a website, post it, and share it with your family, friends, and co-workers. Let me know if any of them are offended.

>> And if I want to draw a caricature of Mohammed shagging a goat and put it on my fridge, I'm allowed. <<

On your fridge?! C'mon, you big coward...post it in public. Let's find out how many of your fellow "civilized" Americans support your right to free speech.

Make it a cartoon of Jesus shagging a goat. And you don't even have to do the work of creating a website. Just attach it to a sign and wave it on a street corner.

>> And if you want to chop my head off because some stupid book told you that blasphemers must die, well, then you're an idiot and you need to step out of the Middle Ages and learn a little bit about civilization. <<

Do this little experiment and you'll learn plenty about how civilized the West is or isn't.

*****

The debate continues (4/7/06)....
>> Subj: Recommended: "Roots of violence found in disrespect"

Muslim leaders from 57 countries are pressing for the new UN human rights body to take steps to prevent the defamation of religions and prophets. <<

Part of the problem in the Islamic world is that the leaders don't speak for their followers. That's what happens when your government is theocratic rather than democratic. Islamic leaders are no different from Western leaders in promoting their own agendas at the expense of their people's.

So part of the solution is to support legitimate political, economic, and social reforms in Muslim countries. Instead, we've overthrown two Islamic countries violently while continuing to support some of the worst Islamic offenders (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt). That isn't much of a solution at all.

*****

The debate continues (4/27/06)....
>> And, if they are grown-ups, once the offended Christians end the yelling and swearing at me, they will go home, have a beer, and forget about it. Or, alternatively, if they really feel I'm such a threat to their way of life, they can lobby for a new law that disallows holding signs on street corners. <<

Talk about naive. Have you ever heard of the "Piss Christ" artwork? How about the Corpus Christi play? The Last Temptation of Christ movie? These were a lot less controversial than the picture I described, yet they generated a huge outcry.

In case you missed it, conservative Christians are foaming at the mouth because they think the phrase "Happy Holidays" is an insult to Jesus. If a national figure or publication said something derogatory about Jesus, the outrage would be immense. It would far outstrip the reaction to anything on a niche show like South Park.

>> Rob's idea of the Jesus sign and his admonishment to "Do this little experiment and you'll learn plenty about how civilized the West is or isn't" is naïve. <<

Then go ahead and do the experiment. Put up or shut up.

>> Christianity is spoofed, disrespected, and satirized in the popular media all the time. <<

So are Arabs and Islam...but Muslims aren't threatening violence over every unflattering depiction. A relatively few Muslims went over the line and acted rashly when Westerners did one of the most blasphemous things possible to their faith.

>> Rob, have you ever even watched an episode of South Park? (a great show imho) Jesus is a frickin cartoon character on there! <<

>> Recently a movie came out called Jesus is Magic that was highly offensive to Christianity. It barely created a ripple. <<

Never heard of it...and I keep up on the entertainment news. As for South Park, I believe its viewership is something in the 3-million range. That means 99% of Americans don't watch it and thus don't get offended by it. The people who do watch it are self-selected cynics like you.

>> Another movie (which in my opinion is one of the best movies ever), called Dogma, skewers Catholicism. <<

I've seen it. I give it a 7.5 of 10 (the first half was better than the second half). Saved! is a better Christian satire; I give it an 8.5.

>> Those are just a few off-the-top-of-my-head examples of anti-Christian portrayals that are available worldwide to offend anyone who sees them, yet how many riots have there been demanding the heads of Matt Stone, Trey Parker, Sarah Silverman, Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, etc. <<

Wow, you seem to have utterly missed my point, despite my making it explicit. Here, I'll try again. The Muslim cartoons weren't just an average offense comparable to these movies or cartoons satirizing Chrisianity. They were the most offensive thing conceivable to a Muslim. Not to you or me, to them. What would be comparable to these cartoons in our Christian culture is a cartoon of Jesus having sex with a goat.

You haven't seen anything that extreme because our supposedly liberal culture wouldn't tolerate it. I suspect you know that, although you're too chicken to say so, or you'd be the first to try my little experiment and prove me wrong.

>> For the most part, Christians (or anyone else) who is offended by such things do what responsible adults should do: they don't pay attention to the movies, TV shows, or web sites that offend them and instead watch shows and movies that
promote their values and visit websites that do the same. <<

For the most part, your examples aren't as extreme as the Muhammad cartoons were to Muslims. Since you've failed to understand the problem, it's no wonder you're coming up with the standard, simplistic solution. It's the same "solution" arrived at by all the unthinking Americans who believe their country is tolerant but are unwilling to test the limits of that tolerance.

Ironically, you have a religious-like faith in our freedom of speech. This blinds you to the reality of our deep-seated opposition to legitimate dissent. Try burning a flag on a street corner if you don't want to carry a picture of Jesus shagging a goat. Find out why half the country wants to ban this form of protest.

>> Hopefully that clarifies my point of view. I'd like Rob to explain his more. How can you support free speech but censor religious dissent? <<

I never advocated censorship, that's how.

Here, read some excerpts from the fine commentary in the New York Times (2/17/06) again:

Even many Americans who condemn the cartoon's publication accept the premise that the now-famous Danish newspaper editor set out to demonstrate: in the West we don't generally let interest groups intimidate us into what he called "self-censorship."

What nonsense. Editors at mainstream American media outlets delete lots of words, sentences and images to avoid offending interest groups, especially ethnic and religious ones. It's hard to cite examples since, by definition, they don't appear. But use your imagination.

Hugh Hewitt, a conservative blogger and evangelical Christian, came up with an apt comparison to the Muhammad cartoon: "a cartoon of Christ's crown of thorns transformed into sticks of TNT after an abortion clinic bombing." As Mr. Hewitt noted, that cartoon would offend many American Christians. That's one reason you haven't seen its like in a mainstream American newspaper.

Or, apparently, in many mainstream Danish newspapers. The paper that published the Muhammad cartoon, it turns out, had earlier rejected cartoons of Christ because, as the Sunday editor explained in an e-mail to the cartoonist who submitted them, they would provoke an outcry.

*****

But the American experience suggests that steadfast self-restraint can bring progress. In the 1960's, the Nation of Islam was gaining momentum as its leader, Elijah Muhammad, called whites "blue-eyed devils" who were about to be exterminated in keeping with Allah's will. The Nation of Islam has since dropped in prominence and, anyway, has dropped that doctrine from its talking points. Peace prevails in America, and one thing that keeps it is strict self-censorship.

And not just by media outlets. Most Americans tread lightly in discussing ethnicity and religion, and we do it so habitually that it's nearly unconscious. Some might call this dishonest, and maybe it is, but it also holds moral truth: until you've walked in the shoes of other people, you can't really grasp their frustrations and resentments, and you can't really know what would and wouldn't offend you if you were part of their crowd.

The Danish editor's confusion was to conflate censorship and self-censorship. Not only are they not the same thing — the latter is what allows us to live in a spectacularly diverse society without the former; to keep censorship out of the legal realm, we practice it in the moral realm. Sometimes it feels uncomfortable, but worse things are imaginable.

Another correspondent steps in
On the same day as the previous reply, Correspondent Karyl read my exchange with Bonnie and tried to mediate our dispute. This is my response to Karyl:

>> I agree with what you said: That we have the right to state our opinions, even if they offend other people. And that having the right to protest does not include the right to be violent or to threaten violence, no matter what the issue is. Also they cannot use their religious views justify such actions, and they cannot use their religious views to try to control the actions of others.

And, if I understand Robert's views, he is probably in total agreement on all of the above. Right, Robert? <<

Yes, of course.

>> And, if they are grown-ups, once the offended Christians end the yelling and swearing at me, they will go home, have a beer, and forget about it. Or, alternatively, if they really feel I'm such a threat to their way of life, they can lobby for a new law that disallows holding signs on street corners.

Agreed. Robert, are you with us still? <<

I agree that's what Christians should do. Considering their incessant whining about an imaginary war on their religion, it's clear they don't do that in reality. The examples I gave, and more, prove the point.

>> Rob can speak for himself, but I don't think that Rob wants to censor religious dissent. I think that this was just a communication glitch between the two of you. <<

I think I summarized Bonnie's views accurately. Nothing in her elaboration was anything other than what I surmised.

*****

The debate continues (6/23/06)....
On 5/27/06 Bonnie sent me the following message:

You have been sent the following article from Bonnie as a courtesy of The Detroit News.

"Movies-TV-Video — The DaVinci Debate"

To view this article on The Detroit News Web site, go to:

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006605170402

The following is a short message from Bonnie:

Here's your answer to how Christians would respond to someone attacking the very foundation of their beliefs: They are offended, they discuss it, they boycott it. They do NOT riot or threaten to kill people. Admit it — Radical Christians are more civilized than radical Muslims.

Bonnie

My reply (on 6/23/06):

>> Here's your answer to how Christians would respond to someone attacking the very foundation of their beliefs: They are offended, they discuss it, they boycott it. <<

And they force governments to act on their behalf, as they did in China. If the Chinese government hadn't caved in, they might well have rioted. As far as we know, the only reason they didn't riot is because they got their way.

>> They do NOT riot or threaten to kill people. <<

This is a matter of degree at most. It's not a matter of kind. Powerless Muslims riot when they can't force a government to censor people. Powerful Christians don't have to riot because they can force a government to censor people.

And no, I'm not just talking about China. I'm talking about the US also. Fundamentalist Christians have acted against anything they perceived as an affront: Howard Stern, Janet Jackson's breast, the F-word on TV, etc. The government has responded by fining the media for breaking the rules, which is basically a form of censorship.

>> Admit it — Radical Christians are more civilized than radical Muslims. <<

No, I won't admit it. Not until the same circumstances arise and radical Christians respond differently. That's why I suggested you test America's Christians with a street sign on the corner depicting the equivalent of the Muhammed cartoons. You and everyone else are too afraid to do such a thing, which implicitly proves my point.

Meanwhile, you admit my point. Namely, that radical Christians are not tolerant of people mocking their religion. They'll act against these people and force them to change if they can.

And if it isn't clear, we're talking about fundamentalists here, not the thoughtful Catholics in the article you sent. Catholics generally aren't radicals or fundamentalists in the US.

*****

The debate continues (6/27/06)....
Correspondent Tom read my exchange with Bonnie and chimed in with the following:

>> Beijing booted Da Vinci because it was doing better B.O. than any of their domestic films. <<

That's one theory, but there's no way to prove it. I like my theory better.

Has China censored any other popular American films? Not that I've heard of.

>> For the Christians living in non-Christian countries who face all sorts of oppression, including blasphemy, what do they do when they can't force a government to censor their oppressors? <<

Boycott, riot, or call for international aid. But what does this have to do with the main point...nothing? We're not talking about government oppression in this particular exchange.

>> There was the two-part Muhammed cartoon episode on this year's South Park which ended with Jesus defecating on the American Flag. Now you can admit it. <<

Nope. Cable TV shows get only a couple million viewers. The Muhammed cartoons were seen worldwide.

If you think the venue—cable or network TV—doesn't matter, put the same show on CBS, NBC, or ABC at 8 pm. If there's no protest then, I'll conceded that Christians are more tolerant.

But wait. We already know right-wing Christians will protest Janet Jackson's breast or Nicolette Sheridan's backside if it appears on network TV. South Park isn't on network TV. So I'll conceded Christians might be tolerant in the hypothetical situation above if you admit they're intolerant in reality.

More intolerant Christians
On 8/13/06 I sent the following message and LA Times article to Bonnie:

Why can't these violent and fanatical Christians be more like the world's peace-loving Muslims?!

Catholics Riot Before Protestant Parade

From Times Wire Reports
August 13, 2006

About 15,000 Protestants paraded through the predominantly Roman Catholic city of Londonderry in Northern Ireland after a night of rioting by Catholics. The parade ended without clashes as about 700 police officers in the British province kept rival mobs apart.

Police said rioters in Bogside, the major Catholic district beside central Londonderry, hijacked and burned at least two cars and threw about 50 Molotov cocktails at police.

The trouble came hours before the parade by the Apprentice Boys. The Protestant fraternal group's annual march through the city's central square and atop its 17th-century walls, which overlook the Bogside, has led to violent clashes in the past.

On 9/25/06 I sent the following message and NY Times article to Tom:

More evidence that Christians are just as intolerant as Muslims. Note that Muslims didn't riot over Pope Benedict's remarks and Christians haven't rioted over Madonna's concert—yet.

Conservaties Want More Religion in One NBC Show, and Less in Another

Kevin Reilly, president of NBC Entertainment, announced this summer that the network would broadcast a taped concert by Madonna during the November ratings sweeps period. At the time, he said the concert would be edited to exclude offensive material. But Mr. Reilly was also quoted in August as saying that the network had no problem with a part of the performance in which Madonna sings while mounted on a cross, in imitation of the Crucifixion of Jesus.

That part of Madonna's current concert tour has drawn protests around the world from people who believe it is blasphemous or offensive to Christians. This week, after receiving letters of protest about the concert and its intentions, NBC said it had not yet decided whether to include the crucifixion scene.

A spokeswoman for Madonna, however, said Friday that the singer considered the scene crucial to the performance and could withdraw the right for NBC to televise the concert if the scene were cut.

Liz Rosenberg, a publicist at Warner Brothers Records who serves as a spokeswoman for Madonna, said in an e-mail message: "Madonna would not want this number to be censored. It is an important aspect of the show." She said she could not immediately reach Madonna to ask if she would pull out of the concert if NBC cut the song, "but my educated guess is that she will not back down."

Madonna also issued a statement on Thursday saying that the performance was "neither anti-Christian, sacrilegious or blasphemous."

"Rather," it went on to say, "it is my plea to the audience to encourage mankind to help one another and see the world as a unified whole. I believe in my heart that if Jesus were alive today, he would be doing the same thing."

Pope proves intolerance
Pope Benedict XVI is doing a fine job of showing how intolerant Christians are. After being in office a couple of years, he's already denigrated Islam, Native religion, and Protestantism. By the time he's done, will there be anyone in the world he hasn't offended?

So the leader of roughly 1.1 billion Catholics can't tolerate the world's 1.3 billion Muslims and 1 billion Protestants. Maybe he can tolerate Hindus and Buddhists, but I doubt it. It seems he can't tolerate anyone who isn't a Catholic. And Catholics have to be strict adherents who follow the Vatican's dictates, or he's likely to condemn and even excommunicate them too.

Some tolerance.

Picking on conservative Christians like the Pope is like shooting fish in a barrel. And the Pope is one of the more enlightened ones. The list of things America's Christian fundamentalists can't tolerate is long: homosexuality, feminism, secularism, atheism, evolution, pornography, abortion, sex education, etc. These are the people who will burn books but vilify you if you burn a flag.

The Pope's recent denigration of Protestantism occasioned a WorldNetDaily column by right-wing pundit Joseph Farah. Correspondent Joe sent it to me and here it is:

Saturday, July 14, 2007

'Kill the pope!'

By Joseph Farah

The reaction to Pope Benedict's characterization of Protestants as not really belonging to the "true Church" set off a wave of global upheaval:

* Evangelicals burned the pope in effigy in the U.S.

* Catholic cathedrals were burned down in Europe.

* Catholic missionaries were attacked in Asia.

* Catholic Bibles were thrown on a bonfire in Africa.

* Protestants kidnapped priests and nuns in Latin America and held them for ransom.

* Threats on the life of the pope poured in from around the world.

You saw all this on the news, right?

Oh, you didn't?

You mean non-Catholic Christians did not rise up in anger and violence when insulted by the pope?

Why is that?

After all, look at what happened in the Islamic world when Pope Benedict ever-so-gently chided its history.

Last fall, Pope Benedict gave a speech at Regensburg in which he quoted from a 14th century text that denounced as "evil and inhumane" Muhammad's decree that Islam could be spread by the sword.

Within hours of the address, priests in Islamic countries were murdered and churches were burned. Muslims "protesting" the speech — because it insulted their "peaceful" religion — shot an African nun in the back. Threats were made against the life of the pope. When the pope traveled to Turkey two months later, he was met by tens of thousands of angry demonstrators.

With that recent experience with what we're told is "the religion of peace" in mind, should we not have expected the non-Catholic Christian world to ignite like a powder keg when insulted by Pope Benedict?

Yet, it did not happen.

Why?

It's quite simple.

Christians, generally speaking, though constantly criticized by non-believers as intolerant, are actually the most tolerant, peaceable people in the world. They believe in debate. They believe in dialogue. They believe in lively and free expression. They believe in permitting others to speak their minds — even when they profoundly disagree with what is said.

As an evangelical Christian, I was disappointed the pope would approve a document that characterized my faith as "defective" because I did not submit to his authority and the authority of priests but instead live only by the authority of God and His Word.

I disagree with the pope that the church Christ established on this Earth had anything to do with an institution run by men. The church Christ started was not a building. It was not a corporation. It was not a set of rules. It was and is a relationship between Creator and His creation.

Nevertheless, no matter how profoundly I disagree with the pope on this issue, I am not even slightly tempted to burn down Catholic churches or take nuns and priests hostage. I don't think many other non-Catholic Christians are either — as evidenced by the quietude we have experienced in the world since the pope's action.

There's a lesson here.

Some non-believers like to portray Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists as cut from the same cloth. I think the reaction to these two separate pronouncements from the Vatican illustrates just how profoundly ignorant, unenlightened and bigoted such conclusions are.

No heads were chopped off in the creation of this column.

No children were recruited into the suicide bomber profession in the creation of this column.

No women were stoned to death in the creation of this column.

And none of those things will happen as a result of the pope's difference of opinion with the non-Catholic Christian world.

No, I don't want to kill the pope because of his wrongful conclusions about me and my faith.

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate <http://www.creators.com> . His latest book is "Stop The Presses: The Inside Story of the New Media Revolution <http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=3D2040> ." He = also edits the online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin <http://www.g2bulletin.com> , in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.

My response to Farah's column and to Joe on 8/24/07:

>> Christians, generally speaking, though constantly criticized by non-believers as intolerant, are actually the most tolerant, peaceable people in the world. <<

This is a joke. Liberals, including liberal Christians, have forced conservative Christians to become tolerant. When conservative Christians faced no opposition, they were free to discriminate against, subjugate, enslave, or kill anyone who disagreed with them.

Besides, the people in power can ignore criticism because it doesn't hurt them. Protestants control the most powerful countries in the world. In contrast, some Muslims feel besieged because they have no rights and because the US is threatening to invade their countries (Iran, Syria, Pakistan). That's why a small minority of them react harshly to criticism of their beliefs.

Anyway, it's true that liberal Christians are tolerant. Unfortunately, Conservative Christians are less tolerant. Here are some of your brethren calling for the extermination of entire countries of non-believers:

The time has come for the United States to make good on its past pledges that it will use all military capabilities at its disposal to defend U.S. soil by delivering nuclear strikes against the instigators and perpetrators of the attacks against the nation's political capital and the nation's financial capital.

At a bare minimum, tactical nuclear capabilities should be used against the bin Laden camps in the desert of Afghanistan. To do less would be rightly seen by the poisoned minds that orchestrated these attacks as cowardice on the part of the United States and the current administration.

To consider use of the nation's nuclear forces, in the present circumstances, cannot be brushed aside as an overly emotional response to the unknown face of terrorism. To begin with, we know who that face belongs to, and we know where a goodly portion of his logistical and training capabilities are located. A series of low-level, tactical nuclear strikes in the Afghanistan desert would pose no risk to large population centers and would carry little risk of fallout spreading to populated areas.

A suburban Atlanta police officer lost his job after sending an e-mail advocating the killing of millions of Arabs and suggesting that the United States "eliminate the entire Arab world" if terrorism continues.

Days after the Sept. 11 attacks in which hijacked planes rammed into the World Trade Center towers in New York and a wing of the Pentagon near Washington, Ray Sanford, a police crime analyst in Griffin, made the comments on an e-mail discussion list he had created for law enforcement officers.

"I think 1,000 Arabs must die for each American killed," Sanford wrote. The message also advocated starving the Afghan people to death.

LA Times, 10/5/01

We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

Ann Coulter, National Review Online, c. October 2001

We don't do small well in this country and we should stop trying to. Countries dominated by fundamentalist Muslim clerics are orchestrating these attacks. Those governments (not the religion) need to be eliminated, just as we eliminated Nazism. If we need to draft an army of 10 million and occupy these aggressors for generations, so be it. This needs to be a large, conventional war on these barbarians, not a dogfight with their lap dog.

Gary Hall, letter, LA Times, 10/6/01

We must now use our unsurpassed military to destroy all branches of the Iranian and Afghani governments, regardless of the suffering and death this will bring to the many innocents caught in the line of fire.

We want action. Any country or person harboring a known terrorist must face annihilation. Any person or country purposely contributing to terrorism must face extinction. It's simple. This is what American people need to hear.

And who says Christians as a whole are more tolerant than, say, Jews or Buddhists? No one, since these other faiths have a record of not persecuting non-believers. Christians certainly aren't more tolerant than Native Americans, who never tried to convert non-believers to their faith.

>> Nevertheless, no matter how profoundly I disagree with the pope on this issue, I am not even slightly tempted to burn down Catholic churches or take nuns and priests hostage. <<

This is ironic considering Protestant Americans have a long history of banning Indian ceremonies, kidnapping Indian children, and forcing them to convert to Christianity. Some quotes on the subject:

These ways of the Indian...comprise to us a monstrous but to them a very sacred religion.

[Education] cuts the cord that binds [Indians] to a Pagan life, places the Bible in their hands, substitutes the true God for the false one, Christianity in place of idolatry...cleanliness in place of filth, industry in place of idleness.

1887 Superintendent of Indian Education Annual Report 131

The policy of the government is to aid these mission schools in the great Christian enterprise of rescuing from lives of barbarism and savagery these Indian children, and conferring upon them the benefits of an educated civilization.

In re Can-ah-couqua, 29 F. 687 (D. Alaska 1887)

The most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages, though it is apt to be also the most terrible and inhuman. The rude, fierce settler who drives the savage from the land lays all civilized mankind under a debt to him. American and Indian, Boer and Zulu, Cossack and Tartar, New Zealander and Maori,—in each case the victor, horrible though many of his deeds are, has laid deep the foundations for the future greatness of a mighty people. The consequences of struggles for territory between civilized nations seem small by comparison. Looked at from the standpoint of the ages, it is of little moment whether Lorraine is part of Germany or of France, whether the northern Adriatic cities pay homage to Austrian Kaiser or Italian King; but it is of incalculable importance that America, Australia, and Siberia should pass out of the hands of their red, black, and yellow aboriginal owners, and become the heritage of the dominant world races.

Yes. Secularism is necessary to combat the past and present excesses of Christianity. That's why we have and need a wall between church and state.

>> Some non-believers like to portray Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists as cut from the same cloth. I think the reaction to these two separate pronouncements from the Vatican illustrates just how profoundly ignorant, unenlightened and bigoted such conclusions are. <<

It doesn't take enlightenment to know that the Christian fundamentalists controlling our government have invaded two Islamic countries and killed tens of thousands of innocent Muslims.

Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment
Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail
See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media
Political and social developments ripped from the headlines